Your Saturday Poem
From "American Primitive," Poems by Mary Oliver
The Snakes
I once saw two snakes,
northern racers,
hurrying through the woods
their bodies
like two black whips
lifting and dashing forwards;
in perfect concert
they held their heads high
and swam forward
on their sleek bellies;
under the trees,
through vines, branches,
over stones,
through fields of flowers,
they traveled
like a match team
like a dance
like a love affair.
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(204)
-
▼
May
(19)
- Your Saturday Poem From "American Primitive," Poem...
- Field Trip! Field Trip!The Planning Commission is ...
- Planning Commission TodayThe Planning Commission w...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for May 28, 2009I Do, I Do, Yo...
- Look, Mommy, Interesting Dots . . .So, let’s add a...
- Your Saturday PoemThis is one of my favorite poems...
- Aww, Gawd, Ponies, Books and now . . . houses?"Cor...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for May 21, 2009Aw, Gawd, Pull...
- Hurry! Hurry Hurry!Run, do not walk' skip, do not ...
- Your Saturday PoemFrom "American Primitive," Poems...
- Show Me Da Money!As folks here in Los Osos know, t...
- Oh, Thanks For Letting Me Know, Guys ...Typical. S...
- Rock 'em, Sock 'em, Part II"When the Microphone We...
- And Now, Another VoiceThe following was written by...
- Formal Complaint to BOSThe following was presented...
- Is That A Morph or Memorex? Uh-oh, Ron Crawford's ...
- Your Sunday PoemThis by Mary Oliver from "American...
- Now It Can Be ToldThis is a Sewerville Story. For...
- Calhouns Can(n)ons for May 1, 2009Oh, Look, It’s C...
-
▼
May
(19)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
83 comments:
Ann,
I apologize for not commenting on the poem but instead using this location to start a discussion of Gail's appearance on the Congleton show Friday.
First off, I was disappointed that the callers were, by-n-large, so much on one side of the issue ... but that is maybe to be expected based on who might listen to Congleton and Gail.
Second, I don't believe the charges against Paavo or MWH for a minute.
However, even so, I really hope that one of the other bidders gets the job and not MWH. Not that I think they would do a better job, but because MWH has become a lightening rod and if they are selected there are many who would cry foul.
The County would be wise to keep this in mind when selecting which bids to go with.
The County has shown they're already willing to take politics into consideration when they dismissed the TriW site far more quickly than would be wise considering CEQA and the likelihood that the CCC, the Army Corps and USFWS all would need to see some evidence that the out of town site has benefits enough to justify the downsides.
Furthermore, I am disappointed that there hasn't been a clear explanation of why only gravity bids will be considered. Yes, the survey says that gravity is preferred by those who answered, but even so, why not solicit a few bids if it doesn't really cost much to obtain a bid. Is the cost too high? Certainly it would seem that there likely would be a sizable difference in the costs between two collection technologies by comparison to the cost differences between two designs using the same technology.
Again, from the point of view of someone who has had few problems with what the County has done so far, I still think that Gail made some very good points and the County would be wise to listen.
Word Verification: ogren
Thank you for the Saturday poem! I know I don't always comment - but I appreciate the poems a lot and your effort to bring them to us.
Shark, it costs a great deal to get that extra bid for another technology. A separate RFP must be crafted. And there were time delay reasons to not go there as well.
There have been clear explanations - at the planning commission and BOS - but some people don't want to hear these explanations, or don't believe them, so assert that there have been none. Not true.
Catering to the "foul" cries of a minority of the community - some of which are only calling foul to delay things - does not make sense. The issues of easements onto private property was one of the deal killers as well. That really is a problem, as well as no place to put new tanks in some areas.
Step proponents never address the very real costs to property owners as if they were not true. So those problems are ignored when they argue for step.
The people who took the time to return their surveys are the people to listen to. The County is doing the sensible thing to move ahead despite the reasonable sounding arguments of Gail and Lisa.
Shark...if this is what you recommend, make sure the county comes out to my house and gives me an estimate on what I'm looking at as far as on site costs.....I have 3 retaining walls in my front yard, a french drain, a few beautiful trees and much-cared for landscaping...I'll also need an additional electrical panel, since mine right now will not do the trick.....also, make sure they give me a cost analysis of my peace of mind, since leaving on vacation with the fear of blackouts or unheaded alarms causing shit to back up into my house is...well....pretty pricey....
not to mention how they are going to get me to sign an easement to enter my property (and the very real effect such easement may have on my property value)
70%.....no matter how much math magic people attempt to perform....70% is 70%.....
As Gail McPherson said after the recall I say to STEP proponents: "You lost. Get over it."
Lynette wrote: (Steve)/Shark, it costs a great deal to get that extra bid for another technology.
Lynette,
You never question consider how much money, time and energy would be saved from using another technology like vacuum.
Too bad, because 20% of all "water dollars" being considered in the "so-called" stimulus is for green projects and “gravity” is not.
It is interesting that the decision to go gravity had nothing to do with the current economic situation, but that "situation" seems to now be a contributing factor to the “hurry up.”
Can you or anyone, even “sorry, I forgot his last name”, guarantee that a direct stimulus payment to the county would play any roll at all in the funding of a project?
I understand that all funding will be distributed via SRF same as it ever was, so what is the rush?
Willy: Bhaaaa
I didn't get a chance to hear Gail on the Congalton show.
I got a question. To qualify for an SRF loan, the project has to be sustainable. How does the County address that?
If, in 2006, the RWQCB didn't like pipes going out of town for STEP/STEG effluent (complaining of odor nuisance and leaks), how does the County come to the conclusion that Tonini is the preferred project? Doesn't that fly in the face of what the RWQCB's concerns were, especially now it's raw sewerage in the gravity pipes?
Aaron http://920kvec.com/pages/1370403.php
the conglaton show but not clear on the date being posted yet.
The callers would be a combination of people who listen to the show regularly and those alerted to the subject, shark. No coincidences.
MWH has a familiarity with the project from previous work not icluding sprayfields. It would be nice if they wern't selected but realistically selection criteria have to be used. In other words it would be illegal (?) to solicit a bid in this process and then avoid a qualified vendor due to public outcry. One Los Osos sewer activist has called up every company that has any technology with sewer implications, they no longer return his calls.... In other words the total potential pool has shrunk for many reasons. If anything the willingness of MWH to take another shot may be a good signal to other vendors (never mind the convoluted Bancrupcy suit).
Fully sealed Gravity pipes will cost a ton. unsealed gravity pipes(county refers to them as sealed- they are in fact Gasketed) are likely to leak over time. Not a problem in most locations because the sole water source is not directly under the big pipes in most those locations. Step and vacume use small diameter shallow pipes.
The smaller diameter pipes are more economical to fuse. It's a scale based technology issue. Step and vacume are therfore more suitable to our dunes, from a collection system integrity standpoint.
There has not really been a Co-equal analysis. Additonally the assumption that no special sealage is necessary, put Gravity lower in price in the eary stages. Now that a higher level of pipe integrity may be needed...(as acknowledged by the Hybrid component in current plan).
On the other hand Step proponents did get over the last few years, a chance to promote STEP before during and after the TAC process, so the survey numbers are what they are. The county could/Should had done things differently, but I see the current situation more as a failing of the ceqa process entire.
The dissapearence of the "Creek Crossing " issue is an irony that Ann may have commented on. The qualitative difference between RawSewage and Step effluent has not been recognised in the DEIR. What the RWQCB concerns were and are, is an entirely different issue. The RWQBC3
response is here http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/EIR+Comments+A/DEIR+RWQCB+01.30.09.pdf
Here are some teaser nuggets
"The County should expand on their environmental impact
evaluations regarding trenching associated with the installation of the S-TEPISTEG
system as described in Proposed Project Alternative No. I. This description shold
discuss potential environmental impacts associated with dewatering activities as a
result of deeper versus shallower trenching"
"The DElR does not discuss a mechanism between the County and the private property
owners to ensure adequate access and operations and maintenance of the
STEPISTEG tanks."
Toonces sez:"Thank you for the Saturday poem! I know I don't always comment - but I appreciate the poems a lot and your effort to bring them to us"
You're welcome. Figure the poems as a kind of a breather to all the ankle chewing, a reminder that life is incredibly short and there's little time to waste on ankle chewing in a world filled with sleek racer snakes.
Inlet sez:"Furthermore, I am disappointed that there hasn't been a clear explanation of why only gravity bids will be considered."
Gravity was a done deal from day one, despite the county's promises. It's fate was totally sealed with the survey (and MWH is still a player vis a vis the lawsuits that may come back on the county unless they can make MWH happy. Need to watch to see how quickly the CSD drops that lawsuit.)
toonces sez:"The issues of easements onto private property was one of the deal killers as well. That really is a problem, as well as no place to put new tanks in some areas."
Actually, easements aren't deal killers. Homeowners all over Los Osos have gas company easements with no trouble. As for these easements, anybody who didn't want to participate would be left to Roger Briggs and a $5,000 a day retroactive to 1983 fine. And tank placements for certain tricky areas can be in the roadway rights of way. If I recall, over, what/ 75% of the spotted properties had their tanks is easily accessible areas or another area nearby. There were only a few really difficulte properties.
What we'll now never know, because the Process was short-circuited, is whether people would have made a different choice had they been given pretty accurate prices between the technologies on that survey, as promised.
Mark sez:'Too bad, because 20% of all "water dollars" being considered in the "so-called" stimulus is for green projects and “gravity” is not."
I will be tragic if those dollars are forfeited because gravity is not "green" enough to qualify for those dollars. But, as I've pointed out, the County's interest is in protecting the County, not doing the best possible for or protecting the best interests of the citizens of Los Osos. They're mere bystanders in the Dance of the Elephants.
Alon sez:"The dissapearence of the "Creek Crossing " issue is an irony that Ann may have commented on."
Yes, indeed, and another example of just WHY people are so paranoid and mistrustful about all of this. There's been so much "bad science" and Humpty Dumpty making up of stuff that's then touted as scientific gospel only to dissolve away when some other elected or appointed official invents some more nonsense that is then declared to be gospel -- it's been one long litany of Emily Latella moments . . . "Nevermind . . ."
This issue has never been rocket science but it HAS demanded honesty and integrity at all points. That's what's constantly gone missing from day one back in pre-1983.
HAS demanded honesty and integrity at all points. That's what's constantly gone missing from day one back in pre-1983.
A-men to that.
Sincerely, M
Shark sez:
"Certainly it would seem that there likely would be a sizable difference in the costs between two collection technologies by comparison to the cost differences between two designs using the same......"
Guess you missed the May 5th BOS meeting. A fellow, forget his name, gave a pretty good comparison study of two systems. (Over head projector, and all) Since the screen seemed to be behind the BOS, I wonder if the saw it at all. Doesn't matter anyhow, because they have, no doubt, already made the "under the table" deals for all their cronies, including for themselves, a handsome profit.
I think Anns poem is very descriptive and apropos..."snakes slithering through the forest....." and into you pockets.
"toons sez:
Catering to the "foul" cries of a minority of the community - some of which are only calling foul to delay things"
The MINORITY???Really?? Lady, you got to get your head on straight and stop quoting your ideas as fact. It ain't those MINORITY folks causing the delays, it's wrong information purveyors like you.
Ann says, "life is incredibly short and there's little time to waste on ankle chewing in a world filled with sleek racer snakes."
A propos this theme, a web site called THE COMMITTED PARENT http://committedparent.wordpress.com/ this week provides a link to an essay by Matt Harding that was featured on a National Public Radio THIS I BELIEVE segment in March. You may have seen the YouTube video of him dancing with people all over the world. Over 21 million people have seen it so far. In a world too much characterized by alienation, Matt's way of connecting touches people's hearts. If you have not seen the video, the link to it follows his essay.
The web site for THE COMMITTED PARENT has the link to both the essay and the video. They are short and worth the time.
I apologize for failing to be technologically curious enough to have learned to embed the link here. But you can copy and paste the web site reference to your browser.
An easement for a person to come onto your property to read a meter is a tad different that the huge area you can no longer use for trees or that deck you wanted to build. You will have someone on your property with a snaky hose stepping on your drought tolerant plants to access the lovely 24" tank lids for pumping and testing.
I was at a home Friday night up in the hills south of SLO. Two bright green tank lids decorated the yard. They looked like the convex tops to round trash cans. Not so bad as this was a huge lot with many trees and vistas, not so good if this is a small lot where two plastic lids were your main decoration.
Before Roger Briggs ever got to you, the County would be in a legal battle with you over the right to do this. There is a difference between buying a home where this arrangement already exists and having this arrangement foisted on you. It would be the same battle as having a CDO placed on your property - this time it is tank lids and the outcome is not quite so likely to lose. The County does not want to go there. At a meeting I saw one person tell the County to Bruce and Paavo's faces that they would NOT allow a tank on their property. This person is not the only one willing to put up cash to defend their property. How can you force a person to spend THOUSANDS to upgrade panels, replace retaining walls, fences, landscaping (and RISK discovery of non-permitted electrical connections) in addition to the rest of the sewer bill? I'd think the CDO protesters would be protesting this - and if they aren't - why not? Are they saying more Water Board enforcement action would be a GOOD thing?
John Waddell explained how this would NOT work in roadways - there is not enough distance between water lines and sewage in some of the tiny streets, and the tanks would need to go end to end mid-street as the properties had no room in front to place the giant tanks.
Here is some info off that Powerpoint:
Gravity system with existing design: $150k
STEP/STEG with no design: $150 - $200k
Final EIR and Coastal Development Permit delayed minimum 6 to 8 months
Ripley Report Estimated savings: $20-$25/month
STEP/STEG system has greater greenhouse emissions (methane)
• Planning and design not sufficient for regulatory permit applications
• Design costs will erode expected D/B construction savings
• Project delays will erode expected D/B construction savings
Obtaining easements on essentially all of the private lots would be needed so the County can maintain the STEP tanks and pumps. Considering the apparently substantial community opposition, County staff is concerned that the County’s use of eminent domain or Regional Water Board enforcement action against individual property owners would be needed to obtain the easements.
The STEP/STEG alternative shifts the major impact of construction excavation from the County’s road right-of-way to private properties.
STEP/STEG tank dimension 6’ x 14’ x 6’
• Minimum excavation 10’ x 18’ x 9’ deep at each home
• Potential excavations of 24’ x 32’ with sloped sides
• Major disruption of personal property, landscape, and hardscape
Estimates for average homeowner costs range from $2,400 to $7,500
Some individual homeowners would likely have costs exceeding $10,000
Homeowner on-lot costs will erode expected D/B construction savings
Please look at slide 33 at this address:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=19991
franc4, please look at the survey results regarding the WWTF. Of those that bothered to voice an opinion, most want to move ahead with this, and you can count on 2 hands the number of people who are fighting the County.
Now please explain how information I put out has caused a delay?
Matt’s Essay and Video here
Lynette,
Bhaaaa....
But please do straighten us out about "sorry, I forgot his last name".
He is your "baby"...
Lynette,
As you seem to be so happy with the county's process and profess to know so much, would you please tell us why "Vacuum Collection" was never studied?
As you know, a vacuum system is less expensive and more energy efficient than gravity.
OK w-mark I'll bite. The horrible truth about vacume is that an overzelous STEP promotion, swamped it.
OK, thats an over-statement. The reasonable (but insane)counter-argument by the county /waterboard would be "blah blah blah tried and true, ... ten years experience".
Tooncers has presented a good listing of arguments against STEP.
At this stage of the game however, Countering with Pro-STEP or anti-gravity will not get the dead horse out of the ditch
(Wait a minute! Anti-Gravity, that's it! the elusive Plan "C" that many were hoping for, that would be the result of the CEQA EIR. Just turn off the local gravity in Los Osos and all the Nitrates and Bacteria will just float out into space! O&M costs- a small fee to maintain the NORAD T_ _d-Tracker program). APCD are nicer than RWQCB and they do use science.
At this point= What's next?
Here is something the snakes can dance to, and it's a lot easier than calculating your equity.
Septic tanks were easy to beat.
Vacuum is a much tougher hurdle...
That is why one was "studied" and the other wasn't.
It is both that simple and that complicated
Mark,
You are SO right! The gravity people had their arguments against Step well-planned. They couldn't have done that with Vacuum, period. That's why Vacuum wasn't considered -- which is a CRIME in my opinion (CEQA).
...very clever bunch, aren't they?!
Another snake story the sheople should understand...
Toonces sez:"How can you force a person to spend THOUSANDS to upgrade panels, replace retaining walls, fences, landscaping (and RISK discovery of non-permitted electrical connections) in addition to the rest of the sewer bill?"
You obviously didn't pay any attention to the RWQCB's Mad Hatter Tea Party and Torquemada's Grand Audo de Fey kangarook court "trials," did you. THAT's how they do it (and are still doing it -- go ask a CDO recipient.)
toonces also sez:"I'd think the CDO protesters would be protesting this - and if they aren't - why not? "
surely you jest here? Does the PZLDF case not ring a bell? That's what that's all about: legal rights (not sewers, but legal process and property rights violated via lack of due process & etc. )
Mark sez:"As you seem to be so happy with the county's process and profess to know so much, would you please tell us why "Vacuum Collection" was never studied?
As you know, a vacuum system is less expensive and more energy efficient than gravity."
Ah, yes. once again the interesting question. As I said before, you can require people to "look" at something, but there is no requirement that they will see it.
Toonces sez:"How can you force a person to spend THOUSANDS to upgrade panels, replace retaining walls, fences, landscaping (and RISK discovery of non-permitted electrical connections) in addition to the rest of the sewer bill?"
"sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette"-
Why are you persisting in your misinformation campaign against STEP/STEG?
What is bothering you?
The "sorry, I forgot his last name" pathology, indicates your strong willingness to ignore significant facts that would bother even someone who pretends to be so interested in the “process”.
An honest person would be concerned with why the County didn't look at vacuum.
Keep it up Lynette, I’ll make you famous…
There are multiple kinds of easements that have been mostly left uncontested, such as storm drain easements, sewer easements, electrical power line easements, telephone line, fuel gas pipe easements etc. Most Americans seem to have no problem with easements or how the easements are constructed, but STEP/STEG? God forbid!
It could cost THOUSANDS, MILLIONS, BILLIONS to upgrade the electrical panels, retaining walls and landscaping! Interestingly enough, the County never projected an average cost per homeowner for STEP/STEG in areas that already have STEP/STEG in place.
Many of the arguments against STEP/STEG and alternatives are hypothetical concerns with no thorough analysis of actual facilities for comparison. The only known analysis was the Virginia Tech comparison, and that was brought to the County's attention by an anonymous member of the community.
...or one could also say:
"Many of the arguments against Tri-W site/design...are hypothetical concerns with no thorough analysis of actual facilities for comparison"
There are easements that are already in place on a house when you choose whether or not to buy that house. If there is an easement that you don't want to live with, don't buy that house.
And that was why I was likening the idea of step to CDO's. Yes - big upset with CDO's! And NOV's are not that fun either! (The PZLDF case as written would have broken up the PZ which is a little different than its purpose was stated above.) But those things have been protested heavily for some time - my question was why isn't step protested in the same fashion by CDO people? The costs per homeowner - Estimates for average homeowner costs range from $2,400 to $7,500.
My question to "affordability" proponents on this blog is this: How will a homeowner, perhaps with an upside-down mortgage due to the current economic situation, and perhaps with some job uncertainty, and perhaps with not much room left on credit cards - how will THIS person foot those up-front, on-lot, HOMEOWNER costs? The project will not pay those costs. I'd like to hear your answers.
This is really a moot point though. We are going gravity. Far less homeowner costs, just the trench for hook-up.
Aaron,
Your question on the cost for step/steg in place is irrelevant to homeowners here and now, why does that seem important? That is only important if you buy a step/steg house that someone is selling.
Ann, you have been following this sewer process pretty closely. Why do you think that no reasons - with back-up documentation - have been put forth on this blog regarding vacuum? "It costs less" is just an opinion. No one has brought forth anything concrete. The County dismissed vacuum in the Rough Screening report as not being viable enough to bring forward into the Fine Screening Report.
Septic tanks are legally permitted., “sorry, I forgot his lat name, Lynette and drinking buddy MIKE.
A little California Water Law seems to be in order:
§ 13301. Cease and desist order
When a regional board finds that a discharge of waste is
taking place, or threatening to take place, in violation of
requirements or discharge prohibitions prescribed by the
regional board or the state board, the board may issue an
order to cease and desist and direct that those persons not
complying with the requirements or discharge
prohibitions (a) comply forthwith, (b) comply in
accordance with a time schedule set by the board, or (c) in
the event of a threatened violation, take appropriate
remedial or preventive action. In the event of an existing
or threatened violation of waste discharge requirements in
the operation of a community sewer system, cease and
desist orders may restrict or prohibit the volume, type, or
concentration of waste that might be added to that system
by dischargers who did not discharge into the system
prior to the issuance of the cease and desist order. Cease
and desist orders may be issued directly by a board, after
notice and hearing.
§ 13301.1. Assistance with order
The regional board shall render to persons against whom
a cease and desist order is issued pursuant to Section
13301 all possible assistance in making available current
information on successful and economical water quality
control programs, as such information is developed by the
state board pursuant to Section 13167, and information
and assistance in applying for federal and state funds
necessary to comply with the cease and desist order.
§ 13360. Manner of compliance
(a) No waste discharge requirement or other order of a
regional board or the state board or decree of a court
issued under this division shall specify the design,
location, type of construction, or particular manner in
which compliance may be had with that requirement,
order, or decree, and the person so ordered shall be
permitted to comply with the order in any lawful manner.
However, the restrictions of this section shall not apply to
waste discharge requirements or orders or decrees with
respect to any of the following:
(1) Discharge of solid waste to disposal sites other than
evaporation ponds from which there is no drainage or
seepage which requires the installation of riprap, the
construction of walls and dikes, the installation of surface
and underground drainage facilities to prevent runoff
from entering the disposal area or leakage to underground
or surface waters, or other reasonable requirements to
achieve the above or similar purposes.
(2) Discharges of waste or fluid to an injection well,
except any well which is regulated by the Division of Oil
and Gas in the Department of Conservation pursuant to
Division 3 (commencing with Section 3000) of the Public
Resources Code and Subpart F of Part 147 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations and is in compliance
with that division and Subpart A (commencing with
Section 146.1) of Subchapter D of Chapter 1 of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) If the court, in an action for an injunction brought
under this division, finds that the enforcement of an
injunction restraining the discharger from discharging
waste would be impracticable, the court may issue any
order reasonable under the circumstances requiring
specific measures to be undertaken by the discharger to
comply with the discharge requirements, order, or decree.
(b) The court shall issue an order directing defendants to
appear before the court at a time and place certain and
show cause why the injunction should not be issued. The
court may grant such prohibitory or mandatory relief as
may be warranted.
Where was/is the assistance?
There is no legal basis for a gasketed/leaky sewer collection system.
Ann
Thanks for the sleek, slythering good poem.
Off Topic
With respect to the "poor response" to the survey. It seems that "poor response" is the Achilles' Heel of the commercial polling industry. There is no national average and many factors seem to come into play.
When we have such a small population as we do we need to hear from a large percentage of the population for accuracy.
When we are making a multi-million dollar decision, as we are now doing, we should allow less tolerance for error.
Some say "Poor response Rate = No Random Sample = No Scientific Measurement/Fact"!!
To base a multi-million dollar decision (even partial) on the basis of that survey is Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful.
Shame on you Bruce Gibson.
“sorry, I forgot his last name” Lynette wrote: Ann, you have been following this sewer process pretty closely. Why do you think that no reasons - with back-up documentation - have been put forth on this blog regarding vacuum? "It costs less" is just an opinion. No one has brought forth anything concrete. The County dismissed vacuum in the Rough Screening report as not being viable enough to bring forward into the Fine Screening Report.
Why not cut and paste the link and language that supports “how” vacuum was dismissed by Paavo’s consulting engineer, Lynette.
In response to your misinformed statement:” do you think that no reasons - with back-up documentation - have been put forth on this blog regarding vacuum?” I put this into this the blog months ago, but perhaps you are out on a date with MIKE and missed it…
Vacuum costs less than gravity.
Ask Paavo “if there is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away” Ogren why vacuum was never studied.
Please cut and past the link and lingo from the RSR you are referring to so you don’t look like you are just giving us your opinion.
At least actually read the nine pages located on the link I supplied above.
Keep up the good work and let me know when you have something on “sorry, I forgot his last name”.
Your memory appears to be in question…
Sorry Swamp. You're tilting at windmills. The million-dollar decision is obviously based on a whole lot more than the survey. But even so, 50% plus 1 is a majority, no matter how many people turn out.
You should heed Gail McPherson's advice after the recall election and Measure B (decided by just 19 votes and what percentage of the population voting?) and just "get over it."
Ignoring the wishes of a majority of people who took the time to fill out a survey just because you don't agree with the results is anti-democratic, unbelievable, unhelpful, and shameful.
Why not cut and paste the link and language that supports “how” vacuum was dismissed by Paavo’s consulting engineer, Lynette.
In response to your misinformed statement:” do you think that no reasons - with back-up documentation - have been put forth on this blog regarding vacuum?” I put thisInto this blog months ago, but perhaps you are out on a date with MIKE and missed it… Your memory appears to be in question…
Bill Dune
Which part of "Poor response Rate = No Random Sample = No Scientific Measurement/Fact" fact do you disagree with?
I find it interesting that when people complain that polls do not get enough of a sampling that there is no additional comment like, "now here's how I would have more gotten responses - ."
Until I hear of a better way to force people who do not care to answer to respond, I guess we'll just have to move forward with what we have.
FOGSWAMP, I would address your comment, "Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful," toward the people who DID NOT care to answer.
I put thisinto this blog months ago, but perhaps you were out on a date with MIKE and missed it… Your memory appears to be in question…
Swamp:
What part of this do you disagree with: Anyone who doesn't vote (or fill out a survey), for whatever reason, by default, agrees with the majority decision.
I'd love for you to get honest just for a minute and answer this: if the survey came out 70% in favor of STEP, would you be touting your response rate formula?
And how would you feel about pro-gravity people trying to minimize or refuting altogether the majority STEP response?
I'm certain I know the answers. If you choose to answer them honestly is your decision.
"Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful,"= "sorry, I forgot his last name"...
The skewed survey was about leaky gravity.
For a survey to be honest(Bwahahaha, Bhaaaa) there would need to be a "sealed" gravity system survey, the "cost" of which has not been "addressed in public"...Willy.
Read the AIRVAC link I supplied and then tell me why you don't want vacuum to be looked at, because it never was by Paavo's consulting engineer.
Why? Bhaaaa...
Mike wrote, "Many of the arguments against Tri-W site/design...are hypothetical concerns with no thorough analysis of actual facilities for comparison."
That's also true, very true.
I think the key difference is: there are more gravity collection systems in the country than STEP/STEG so it's more likely that you'll find another sewer similar to our project/town criteria. Concerns for gravity have a more solid foundation simply because you have more gravity collection systems than STEP/STEG.
Aaron, the key here is that the Tri-W site and system had all the approvals and permits...
The post recall team never produced a viable alternative Plan, just wishful chatter... and a bankruptcy...
If McPherson's team had any plan other than to create expensive delays and somehow overthrow the RWQCB, we wouldn't be having this blog discussion... We'd have a completed, state-of-the-art, working system...
As Joe Sparks said at the Planning Commission hearing, in the abstract, it would have been nice to put the previous project up there for total cost comparisons.
I would have been personally in favor of that only because I believe that all options, even those that I personally disagree with, should be laid out on the table, but the County opted out of making that openness possible.
Homeowner costs Lynette, of the upfront persuasion were complicated (loans?)but not insermountable Where in the Ripley plan, or periferally discussed could be filled in by someone else. I'm not going to parouse the FEIR, either.
Advanced EIRitis I'm afraid, Dr's think it might be fatal.
Lots of activity and good quality comments folks. But why wern't you at the farmers market instead?
Anon sez "Countering with Pro-STEP or anti-gravity will not get the dead horse out of the ditch" Darn it, they keep pulling me back in.
This is about vacume which may yet have a snowball's chance on a cold day in hell.
There is a simple law of engineering that says the less earth you move the less it will cost. There is also an economic advantage to the method that will result in less surface area of street closure, as well as less time streets closed , access to local businesses etc... The net earth moved on both property and public land was calculated (somehow found?)to be "substantially equal" between Step and Gravity, and there are many assumptions about volumes excavated that were challanged well in the DEIR.
Vacume with almost no on-lot disterbance (but there are way stations)has a natural less-soil-disterbed advantage.
The cost proof will not be given as only a bidding process would reveal true costs.
There are costs benefits and unforseen consequences of each system, location, decision and action taken. Right now the responsible agency, the County, has it's hands full with responses from Agencies, Agencies that cannot be ignored, that will alter the County's preffered project.
How are we involved in that?
Word verification: an sed
Billy Dunne
I think the "poor turnout" can be explained in many many ways, depends on the bias you want inject into the equation.
Your simple "default" explanation is a good example, but doesn't fly with professional researchers whom just roll their eyes at the folk that take such biased opinions as gospel.
With any survey, you need to look at the profile of the people who did respond and satisfy yourself that they are about the same as the folk who didn't respond.
If we have a poor level of response, then it is almost certain that there will be some important differences between those who responded and those who didn't.
The assumption that our small sample reflects the population as a whole now gets blown away and with it the possibility of doing any inferential statistics.
With such a poor turnout the chances are high that respondents and non-respondents are unusual in many ways.
A certain percentage of people enjoy answering questions and can't resist this strange pleasure, and they'll answer anything. But do you want to base a multi-million dollar business decision on them?
Others may have thought the survey was too long. It was
in fact lengthy.
Some folk simply, but politly, refused to coperate.
Some probably believed the survey was poory designed.
The topic just didn't interest them.
Maybe they simply didn't want to take the time to respond.
Some may have seen some bias in the questions.
Perhaps we need another survey asking folk to take 30 seconds and explain why they didn't respond by making an X in the box that fits.
Surveys "assume" that people give honest opinions.
Aaron says:
"As Joe Sparks said at the Planning Commission hearing, in the abstract, it would have been nice to put the previous project up there for total cost comparisons.
I would have been personally in favor of that only because I believe that all options…"
Was that your reaction when this very idea was proposed by the TAC ages ago and caused an uproar that anyone DARE speak of such a monstrous comparison? Somehow I don't recall that this was the case. Am I confusing you with someone else?
FOGSWAMP says:
"Perhaps we need another survey asking folk to take 30 seconds and explain why they didn't respond by making an X in the box that fits."
And if no one MAKES them answer that one, WILL they answer?
Sounds to me that Public Works projects don't belong in the hands of average citizens - who for whatever reason don't want to educate themselves or feel the need to participate.
For the record, my concern with TAC was that a certain member of TAC seemed very pressed to put the "mid-town" site on the map for side-by-side comparison and, at times, showed preference toward that location before TAC could fully analyze the other locations.
It wasn't an issue of, "Oh my God! Tri-W was mentioned!" To me, it seemed to be a bit of an obsession for a couple of meetings and I was concerned that the mid-town site discussion would triumph over talks of Tonini, Giacomazzi and Graveyard.
I believe I was clear of my position the first time around.
"Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful," = "sorry, I forgot his last name"...Lynette wrote: “…who for whatever reason don't want to educate themselves…”
Lynette, what about that “evaluation” of Vacuum Collection???
Toonces sez:"My question to "affordability" proponents on this blog is this: How will a homeowner, perhaps with an upside-down mortgage due to the current economic situation, and perhaps with some job uncertainty, and perhaps with not much room left on credit cards - how will THIS person foot those up-front, on-lot, HOMEOWNER costs? The project will not pay those costs. I'd like to hear your answers."
That terrible problem will also be faced by someone facing gravity hook ups. They may have a lot with an less-than good placement and/or they may have to cough up $$ to pay for grinder pumps & etc.
Toonces also sez:"Ann, you have been following this sewer process pretty closely. Why do you think that no reasons - with back-up documentation - have been put forth on this blog regarding vacuum? "It costs less" is just an opinion. No one has brought forth anything concrete. The County dismissed vacuum in the Rough Screening report as not being viable enough to bring forward into the Fine Screening Report."
Beats me. Maybe Mark knows. Alon or Aaron (?) mentioned the usual blah blah, not ten years worth of data, too new a technology, blah blah & etc. Alon's comments above on the amount of dirt moved vis a vis vacuum certainly is interesting. However, as I've repeatedly said, you can require people look at something, but you can't require they see it. If the County had pre-set their choice -- MWH paid-off and happy, gravity back on, Ox-ditch, then they could "look" at all kinds of options, but they'd never "see" them.
Fog swamp sez:"When we have such a small population as we do we need to hear from a large percentage of the population for accuracy.
When we are making a multi-million dollar decision, as we are now doing, we should allow less tolerance for error."
I still find it absolutely astounding that people facing an ENORMOUS hit directly out of their pocketbook would be so uninterested they couldn't be bothered to fill out a survey and return it. That's amazing to me.
Swamp:
When you said "I think the "poor turnout" can be explained in many many ways, depends on the bias you want inject into the equation," I couldn't agree more. That very statement can be said about EVERY facet of the sewer wars. Every single one. And of course I think my bias is correct and backed up with facts, as you believe the same about yours.
I guess we'd just have to agree that we disagree. But I do also wish we had a much, much higher return rate with the survey, but we didn't. I choose to accept whatever came in, you might not. But I have no answer to how to get people to be engaged and interested, not just on the sewer, but any issue on any level. It's a shame.
You are correct Billy... and today we will watch this State-wide election to see how large/small the voter turn out will be... of course I wonder why the un/mis-informed public is even having to make choices 1A thru 1E... I do like 1F...
Why can't our "elected" officials make the tough decisions...if they can't, why are they in office....?????
Yes, Ann, both STEP and gravity will require some homeowner costs. However, as you well know from the Ripley report and the LOCSD TriW plan analysis, the costs at the home for STEP are typically considerably higher than the costs for gravity.
As to the survey ... if it had just been called a non-binding vote on preferences none of you would be having any fuss over the matter because in a vote there is the presumption that anyone wanting to register an opinion will go out of her way to do so. In a survey this is not the case.
To Fogswamp's point about statistical inference ... dead on! However, we can reasonably bet that those who did not register an opinion were more in the "don't know" or "don't care" category than any other. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large, the survey was about as good as could be hoped for.
As for the sample size ... a sample size of about 3000 or so is quite sufficient to draw conclusions about a population of 8000. The "margin of error" would be very small. The bias (which is also likely very small) would swamp the margin of error. That is all to say, we know darn well what people in general in Los Osos would answer to the questions posed on the survey.
Re very very poor response to county survey.
Let's not be too hard on these people whom have been fooled so many times by the vulgar sewer building process again and again, then simply refused to indulge any further.
There is an old truism that has become increasingly trite of late that says it all "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" (coined by the boss of a circus or Abe Lincoln).
Indeed, they were all fooled when the villains took the process from the county with all them expensive coloured brochures with beautiful ponds etc.
Again, they were fooled with more expensive coloured brochures depicting a sewer-park where we could bring our children and picknick!
Then once again they were fooled with another group of failed promises.
Lastly, they were certainly fooled by more false promises and outright lies by their very own supervisor and county officials.
The act of throwing the longwinded survey in the dumpster should instill the screamingly loud message that they no longer want to be a part of the foolhearted process.
Just because the message isn't in ones face, buzzing in ones brain and blowing out ones eardrums, doesn't mean that the message isn't deep and meaningful.
They simply no longer trust he process and who in hell can blame them.
Thank You Foggy, you've just endorsed the reason that Los Osos should never of had any say in the sewer over the past 30 years...!!!!
We would have had a sewer and wouldn't be wasting time on this silly blog that isn't going to solve any sewer problems....
Mike asks some good questions:
Why can't our "elected" officials make the tough decisions ...
and
if they can't, why are they in office....?????The answers are
term limits and prop 13and
term limits and the two-party systemrespectively.
Prop 13 (and other propositions which limit budget choices) has made it increasingly difficult to balance the state budget and term-limits force politicians into making short-term decisions that will make it more likely that they'll be reelected.
The two-party system in general makes it difficult to get representatives that actually represent us well. In general, in regions that are slightly to the left or the right, the representatives are far more extreme than the citizens. Term limits exacerbate the problem by causing politicians to cater to their base instead of the population as a whole because if you win the Rep or Dem nomination you've effectively won the election in most districts in CA.
That being said, Republicans who want to get the nomination of their party run on a platform of no new taxes even if there is a need for more taxes to balance the budget and Democrats who want to get the nomination of their party run on a platform of no cuts in services even if there is a need to balance the budget.
Oh yeah ... did I mention the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget? That completely hosed up our ability to achieve compromise. Any Republican with the balls to do the right thing and forge a compromise with Democrats to keep the state afloat (because there are inherent hidden costs in delays in the budget and unrealistic budgets) will be immediately targeted by his own party.
Nope, you can't count on selfish people doing what is right for the state or for the Country. I would suggest Republicans read David Brooks May 5 commentary to see how they can actually do something to help our state and our Country.
As someone who inherently leans towards conservatism in most ways, I get really fed up with the whole "you can't regulate wall street" mantra which has hosed us up royally. The republicans nationwide have been duped into inherently non-conservative positions by big business and the wealthy playing them like a fiddle.
Mike ... are you sorry you asked?
...eerrr... yes and no...
I'd love to see the legislative folks as bi-partisian or tri-partisian, and end the tremendous cost of getting elected... maybe limit campaign spending to the amount of the wage for that office... Oh well, I'm just an old engineer still thinks you get more done without public input... and you stay in your position by actually producing quality work... Not by kissing a contributors' butt so you can get elected and continue to kiss that butt to get re-elected... It apparently is more important to get re-elected than to actually govern in a fair and un-biased manner... Our State is now so divided along partisian lines, that they will not correct the budget crisis... but we keep letting the special interests re-elect those legislatures... It doesn't matter whether Democrat or Republican, they just won't work together... I had hoped Arnold would have been able to affect a more bi-partisian government, but there are too many special groups and no one of courage to step forward...
I wanted to address what Mike said: "Thank You Foggy, you've just endorsed the reason that Los Osos should never of had any say in the sewer over the past 30 years!"
Los Osos has been in an interesting predicament. The County approved the septic tanks in Los Osos, including the septics that were installed when the moratorium was put in place. They erred in judgment and even then, it appeared that there was a trust issue with the County, but when the responsibility was transferred to the LOCSD, that transition of power created an abundance of people pretending to be sewer experts and wastewater engineers, dictating what, they feel, the "majority" wants and then advancing their personal agenda of what they personally want out of the project.
In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. The lesser of the poison would have been to not form the LOCSD to begin with and push for progressive change on the County level.
I hope that this debacle is being studied somewhere - or everywhere, so that should a warning set of ingredients like these wind up in a future mixing bowl, the contents are tossed before the toxic cake goes into the oven.
Mke
Yes, Hind Sight is 20/20, but have we learned from the past or are we doomed to repeat it?
Seemingly, we have come full circle.
On the lighter side regarding hindsight, I recently read that new embryological research on salamanders has shown that when the optic nerve is connected to the anus at a very early stage of development, the organism usually develops into an animal with hindsight.
Some of the aqnimals even show symptoms of tunnel vision.
Mike, is it the same elected officials you are lambasting in your current post the ones you want making all of our decisions for us?
Sincerely, M
Lynette wrote: I hope that this debacle is being studied somewhere - or everywhere, so that should a warning set of ingredients like these wind up in a future mixing bowl, the contents are tossed before the toxic cake goes into the oven.
ESPECIALLY the, "Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful," = "sorry, I forgot his last name"...STUFF.
Mark is worth ignoring. Phoenix. QED.
But you won't/don't/can't answer the question...
Stuck on stupid.
Bhaaaa, Bhaaaa.
Won't and don't are right. Read my comments in the other thread overdraft boy.
I feel like my Tivo is stuck on repeat between Mark and Shark.
Yeah ... sorry ...
Don't you ever have to keep skipping back just to help someone understand something?
In my life I find it is often those who aren't really listening so well in the first place who need more repetition ... even if others in the room get annoyed it often helps clarify something considerably for those who are willing to finally pay attention ...
DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about Phoenix, AZ overdraft, but just for the sake of conversation, I found a few things on it.
"Historically, Arizonans have pumped groundwater faster than it was replaced naturally - a condition known as 'overdraft.'"
-- Source: OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT CODE (PDF).
"The Phoenix AMA is located in central Arizona and is one of the five Active Management Areas (AMA) mandated by the Groundwater Code (Code) [...] The Phoenix AMA currently is in an overdraft condition in the amount of approximately 251,000 acre feet annually."
-- Source: Phoenix AMA, Arizona Department of Water Resources.
"The Phoenix metropolitan area has a unique combination of circumstances which makes it one of the prime areas in the Nation for waste water reuse. Overriding all of these conditions is the long-term inadequacy of the existing water supplies. The Salt River Valley has a ground water overdraft of about 700,000 acre feet per year."
-- Source: JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 15 Issue 2, Pages 426 - 435 (Abstract)
Yeah, but Mark says that the entire problem in the Phoenix AMA is outside the city limits.
Besides the issue of whether aquifers respect city limits or not, the topic is interesting and there has not been a single published study, research report or government document) which says anything different than your quick conclusions about the region as a whole or sub-areas within the region. The very creation of the AMA was because the state dictated a regional approach should be taken to deal with the regional problem. The exact location of the recharge facilites is based on science and the communities which happen to house them don't get credit for the recharge ... it's a regionwide endeavor.
Now let's see if wsm comes back and slams Aaron too.
...hi 'toons...
Didn't see you at the party over the weekend... ask Gordon... we solved all the problems and created several new ones... much fun, but I should have worn a hat while kayaking Sat morning... ouch!
Forget OverDaft, he doesn't have a clue... AlabamaSue pegged him right thru the heart...
Party? I missed a party? Darn!!!!
Sorry about the sunburn - yeowch!! Might I suggest Solarcaine?
I was waiting for wsm to solve his dilemma - he had dissed Shark horribly, but now that Aaron, who he likes, has come up with information that is the equivalent to what Shark said - well, I wondered if he would dis Aaron too!
Alabalasue got him all right!! Defined to a "T!"
Mark could also be right.
Then again, this is Phoenix, not Los Osos. This is only good "FYI" conversation -- not something that should be dragged out for article after article.
I was hoping to fix the Victrola so the old record can keep spinning.
Aaron has a good point. Mark could, indeed, be right. The problem is that all the available information points to him being wrong and that he has offered nothing to justify his point of view.
No matter ... the key here isn't Phoenix but Los Osos and the lesson from Phoenix is this ... the State required a regional approach to the groundwater so that wiser decisions would be made. Unfortunately AB2701 was written in such a way that the County is responsible for wastewater but they may not be able to achieve some of our regional water goals because the County is not a water purveyor and because AB2701 may not allow them to use aquifer recharge as a criterion for project parameters.
Part of their NOT wanting to use aquifer recharge in the project was to keep the project costs down - this CAN be, but doesn't HAVE to be PART of the project- the recharge/reuse costs WILL occur - but the bill will be coming from the water purveyors, not the County.
Another unintended result of having a recall and Measure B and NO PLAN. The CSD lost control of the water for a minimum of 3 years - until or IF the project is returned to the CSD. And even then, all 3 water purveyors will participate whereas before the CSD controlled it alone unless some other arrangement was agreed upon.
Oh well…
Steve wrote: Yeah, but Mark says that the entire problem in the Phoenix AMA is outside the city limits.
Steve: cut and paste my words that suoort your contention above.
Sorry but you can't.
I choose my words carefully and you do not.
Phoenix is not in over draft, "son".
Aaron,
I especially apreciate your research and sharing it with the class.
A phone call to those in Phoenix who are responsible for that city's water supply will prove conclusive the "Phoenix" is not in over draft.
I have already posted all the contact information so I think the matter has resolved, at least for those who use common sense.
Only because Aaron wants a replay ...
Not exact quotes, but any non-anal person paying attention knows they show the general flavor quite accurately and we will presume Mark is stipulating the the accuracy herein unless he provides evidence to the contrary ...
Steve: Phoenix (meaning the greater metro area, not the city) is in overdraft.
Mark: Is not.
... time passes ...
Steve: Hey, I just looked into it and Phoenix is in overdraft.
Mark: Is not ... just call the city.
Steve: Here these government docs show Phoenix AMA is in overdraft.
Mark: Is not ... you meant the City of Phoenix and not the greater AMA is in overdraft ... but yes, the Phoenix AMA is in overdraft.
Steve: I meant the greater metro area.
Mark: Did not.
...
So Mark ... if the greater AMA is in overdraft and if the City of Phoenix is not it logically implies that the problem of the Phoenix AMA must be outside the city limits.
You didn't say "cats are sentient beings" but when you say "cats are mammals" and "mammals are sentient beings" you cannot deny the logical implication of your words. Only an illogical ass would do that.
As for choosing your words carefully ... it would seem then that you would want to dredge up a quote of mine which shows I was referring to the City of Phoenix in my original claim as that is the basis for your overreaction and your willingness to call me a liar. In short, you made an incorrect assumption and ran with it. This is certainly not typical of people who choose their words carefully.
While Mark may think the matter resolved ... he has never addressed two issues ... why he was so quick to make an (illogical) assumption about what I meant and run with it and even whether the City of Phoenix itself could be in overdraft when their aquifers stretch across several other towns and when the Phoenix AMA to a large extent controls what the individual city does. The city is not the appropriate governing body here to look to and even if they were, they aren't in charge.
Aaron ... I hope you appreciated the re-run.
And now a personal note to Mark. Buddy, I hope and pray that you reconsider your choices about whether your confrontational approach is working ... either for developing my understanding of your point of view or for convincing others that you are being a reasonable participant in this conversation. How about let's just start over on the whole Phoenix thing ...
Steve (with extra clarity): The Phoenix metro area is in overdraft.
Now it's your turn.
This is a very confusing matter. Shark could be talking about one kind of overdraft and Mark could be talking about another kind of overdraft. When there's a clear disagreement of facts, to this degree, there's usually one huge misunderstanding.
It took me years to figure out the situation here in Los Osos and I still have questions.
I suggest that the two parties agree to disagree and talk about what's happening in town.
Finally we are getting to the bottom of the most important problem facing Phoenix...."over" draft...??? The unemployed meat or septic systems and snakeoil salesman thinks that means the mug is over full (hence, "overdraft), with foam pouring over the sides and down his arm...
Shark on the other hand (the dry hand) is talking about drinking water supplies in Phoenix being pumped out the aquifiers below their magic sand pile faster than all the Arizona wrecklamators are draining back into the Mesa Az kitty litter...
None of which applies to Los Osos, unless it's in the Twillight Zone... All of which makes more sense than anything ever written by Ron Crawford....
Aaron gets bonus points ... there is only one definition of overdraft, but when applied to different intersections of region and timeframe overdraft (numbers) might change.
As an example, if we are referring to the whole of the Ogallala aquifer during the timeframe 1990-2000 the overdraft, even if expressed in acrefeet per year per person or acrefeet per year per acre of AG use would be different than if we were discussing, for example, Nebraska but over the 1980-2000 timeframe.
It is also important to note that health of an aquifer is measured by the water table level and that recharge in some locations isn't as effective as recharge in others. What I suspect is happening (and I am not gonna bother actually looking into it unless Mark wants to have a civilized discussion) is that the recharge they're doing in the Phoenix AMA is primarily within the city limits of the city of Phoenix because that is where the biggest bang for the buck could be had, regionally. That being said, the region as a whole has funded the recharge facilities which increase the water table underneath the City first.
Also, because they've been doing better in the recent years inside the AMA (overdraft-wise, the problem is getting smaller), data on the change in the water-table from the last five years would look considerably different than before the CAP, for example.
Like Aaron is suggesting, I very much am willing to agree to disagree. I would love it if Mark would apologize for misunderstanding what I originally wrote or if he would trot out evidence to justify his earlier assertions that I was just plain wrong, no if's and's or butt's about it.
Again, the ball is in his court.
Steve write: Phoenix is in over draft.
Phoenix is not in over draft.
Apology accepted.
Steve wrote: Phoenix is in over draft.
Phoenix is not in over draft.
Apology accepted.
Wht wasn't vacuum collection studied?
Post a Comment